Should the city of New York be responsible for compensating the families who lost loved ones in the World Trade Centers? Sure they should, and they have been.

Should the city still be responsible for providing compensation? Probably not, no. In the same vein, Manchester United provided financial sums to the families that were affected (i would imagine 50,000 pounds would have been worth quite a bit more in the early 60s than it is now). I would also imagine that even the most heartened and devastated of families effected by the Munich Air Disaster would acknowledge that the club was more than sensitive to the tragedy that they went through, and has done enough accordingly over the past many years to ensure that the families have been taken care of. I don't think any of the families would hold their hands up and say either - "we expected more" or "Manchester United exploited us/Munich for their own good".

The Munich Air Disaster is a key moment in the history of this club. To think it's the main reason why this club became a global brand is reasonable enough. To suggest that they exploited the disaster on behalf of their own, money-driven ways is just stupidity to be honest.

Thought it was well known that United didn't handle it properly. The least the club could do is let the family members in for free ffs. Paying for the museum fornicate off whoever thought of that needs a good kicking.

Takhar7 wrote:In the same vein, Manchester United provided financial sums to the families that were affected (i would imagine 50,000 pounds would have been worth quite a bit more in the early 60s than it is now).

During the 25th anniversary of the disaster, players wore the regular kit - complete with Sharp logos and Adidas branding and the programme featured a big Sharp logo too. No-one batted an eyelid about the "commercialisation" of the occasion. Also, as insensitive as it was to incorporate the logo, AIG paid for that mural. They'd have been better off not bothering though. I don't see how it did either them or United any favours - financially or otherwise.

SVII wrote:I don't think it can be disputed that Munich was the key moment in United's history - as the article rightly points out, it was the event which made Manchester United more than just a football club. Certainly the way the club handled it was poor - it wasn't just the players whose careers had been ended who were turfed out of their club houses, it was the families of the dead as well. That was out of order whichever way you look at it. A lot of it comes down to it being only 13 years out of the war - people were still just expected to get on with their lives whatever happened.

I wouldn't really say United exploited Munich - and I fail to see in the article how the club did; it's more about how the families were basically left to fend for themselves afterwards. Certainly the 40th anniversary match was poorly handled - the match was sold out before an opponent had even been confirmed (the first time at least), so there was no need to combine it with a Cantona testimonial. For all that's said about him, Cantona taking £90k directly out of the funds the match raised was plain wrong - especially given it meant the families (who it was supposed to be about) got paid less than him.

Looking at it more recently - certainly the relatives shouldn't have to be charged to go into the museum or to get a seat for a game. And the AIG logo shouldn't have been anywhere near that poster, whether United benefitted from it or not

I think that bears thinking about. Just 15 years earlier and many families in the country would have been in similar situations to the relatives and survivors of Munich. Certainly, they were treated shabbily, but I wonder what happened to other players for other clubs who found themselves unable to play for whatever reason? Presumably in a very similar and equally shabby manner. I think it is more endemic of the times than of one particular club.

My thoughts on the article:

YET it is a rich paradox that Munich was perhaps the making of Manchester United.

Before 1958, they were just another English football club, little different to others such as Arsenal, Tottenham Hotspur or Wolverhampton Wanderers.

But after 1958, because of the tragic death toll, their name had a unique resonance.

The sympathy lavished on the club led to a worldwide following. The international support was made all the more powerful when United rose like a phoenix from the ashes to dominate English football in the mid-Sixties and win the European Cup with a team including George Best exactly a decade after Munich.

Before 1958, United were - unlike Wolves or Spurs, who had just one one league championship each - already in the top five most successful clubs in the history of English league football. They were the first English club to play in Europe, they were the previous season's league champions, narrowly missing out on a double by losing the FA Cup final. The team contained three of the England team's finest players.

The crash meant the club received worldwide sympathy, but in the age before merchandising, live televised games (also even pre-dating Match of the Day) etc, how were we getting a "worldwide following"? The occasional newsreel footage or newspaper article doesn't result in a worldwide support, in my opinion. Torino don't enjoy the same level of worldwide support today, for example - they are lucky if they get more than 15,000 at a home match.

Also, I wouldn't say that one cup and two league titles was enough to "dominate" English football in the 60s. Neither would I say that having a display in the club museum is exploitative. If we didn't have one they'd find fault in that too, no doubt.

Albert Scanlon, their interviewee, held the club in such low esteem that he continued playing for them for several years, and when he died a year ago, his funeral cortege passed Old Trafford, stopping there for a moment (no, JCL - not so the undertaker could buy a replica shirt in the megastore) out of mutual respect.

As for Busby "making a promise he never kept", Scanlon played for United until 1960 and then transfered to Newcastle and played professionally for several other clubs until 1966. "He told me that financially I would be all right." He was while at the club, why should it be United or Busby's responsibility to make sure he was alright after he left? Not that I excuse anyone "Not wanting to know" a past player in need, but we don't know both sides of this story.

Murphy was able to ride a tidal wave of popular sympathy to drag his team to the FA Cup Final at Wembley.

Bollocks. Sympathy alone wins you nothing. Not even a tidal wave of it.

Yet the families of those directly affected by Munich, the widows and the survivors, have shared none of the riches - there was no compensation in those days.

The real issue.

Jackie Blanchflower, for example, who smashed his pelvis, damaged his internal organs and almost lost his right arm in the crash, was forced to lead a sad, twilight existence after Munich ended his career, working as a bookmaker and a pub landlord.

As sad as it was for Jackie, his post Munich life was just the same as it would have been had he suffered a career-ending injury during a match. Most players of those days simply went back to a normal 1950s working life. Being a pub landlord was something may ex-footballers did after retiring from the game. There was no massive pot of money from astronomical wages to fall back on and TV punditry as a career was still some time off being an option.

Kenny Morgans had played 10 games for United before Munich and stayed at the club for a further three years, playing only 13 more games in that time, before moving on to Swansea - his home town club. Fair to say he was given a grace period at Old Trafford that some may not have been given in normal circumstances, as harsh as some may see it. He simply didn't make the grade at United.

'Most of dad's stuff is in there, but if I want to go and see the exhibition, I have to pay a fiver,' says Laurie Blanchflower, the son of Jackie.

As sad as that is, it's the case with almost all of the displays in the museum, not just the items from players associated with Munich. A friend of mine is friends with Norman Whiteside who has "loaned" the museum several items. We asked to photograph some of his old match shirts, which he agreed to but the club will charge us to do this as they are in the museum, even though they are not actually theirs. There is definately some exploitation there and it could be easily rectified.

The families fundraising efforts were not handled at all well by the club - Edwards in particulr seems to be at fault (ironically, if not for Munich, his father Louis would never have gotten onto the board and Martin would have been nothing to United). The families would have been far better served by appealing to the fans rather than the club. The club really missed a trick by combining the Cantona testimonial with the Munich memorial. They could have had their payday from the Cantona game and been seen to be doing a good deed by giving all of the Munich match money to the families.

It is undeniable that their agony helped to turn United into a temple of wealth

Again, there is something in this only in relation to the (Louis and Martin) Edwards family. Had Willie Satinoff not died, Louis would not have been able to take his vacant seat on the board and not been in the position to gobble up the majority of shares and take over as chairman. As for Munich being the source of United's wealth that is bollocks too. For 18 months following the disaster, attendances rose by about 20%. After that they went back to what they had been before, rising only after later successes. The exploits of United in the 1960s was the real reason for the global recognition of the club as a football side rather than a news story, and it is that which United is famous for the most, not for the disaster. Regional and national recognition and reputation came in the dozen years prior to Munich.

For all its present tribulations, with uneven form and disciplinary problems on the field and boardroom rows off it, Manchester United is still the wealthiest, most successful club in the world.

Yeah, this article is not anti-United in any way.

That rise to global stature was started in the desolation of Munich.

Just as was the case for Torino... oh, actually, no it wasn't, was it. Most people have never heard of them, despite being just as successful in Italian football as United were in English football at the time of the Superga air disaster. Perhaps it was the first time many people outside of Europe had heard of United, but that was about it. Actually, I'd be interested in finding out how widely reported it was in the likes of the USA and China etc where we currently have a lot of support.

Some would say, it is a debt that has never been properly paid.

No matter what the club or anyone else does, that debt can never be paid, they can never be brought back. I'm sure the club would have prefered, just as the families would have that the disaster never happened.